[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Hello, all. I wasn't sure where to put this, so I decided to put it here. If the Censors believe it belongs somewhere else, then I shall not be offended. We have talked about Arthur the King in the Exodus thread (on the other Flat Earth site). I have been doing some research on him, actually, beyond Geoffrey of Monmouth, Thomas Malory, and Alfred Lord Tennyson.

It seems that tracking down the Arthur of history, if indeed there was such a man, is not going to be easy. He seems to be a pretty towering figure to have been completely invented out of nothing. But, that is not the point. The point is to do the research and find this man, if any such exists. We know what the legends tell us. Is there any truth to them at all?

Of course, Malory is giving us the Code of Chivalry that was dying as he wrote, the Code that existed in the mind of Plantagenet England, and was so rarely followed in practice either in England, or for that matter, anywhere else.

Of course, for the Code to even exist was something. At least Europeans had something they could aspire to. But back in the day, the Romano-Celtic civilisation (otherwise known as "British") fought the Saxons pretty damn brutally. It was a pretty uncivilised time, and I think maybe the people that wrote about it later wanted to recreate their homeland's history so it would be less brutal than it actually was.

But back to Arthur. Did he actually exist? I'm reading a book right now, "The Mammoth Book of King Arthur", that is a scholarly attempt to get to the bottom of whether he did or didn't. There are more books that I am going to buy as well after I've finished this one, which has 700 pages in it. So, I am curious, especially for those of you who live in the UK, what do you think of the national hero? Did he actually exist? Or is he a fiction? And don't just say something stupid like, "yes he did" or "no he didn't".  I want to hear what your reasons are  for saying either.

[Rama Set]

Yes he did.

[Ghost of V]

You're on a roll.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

RAMA SET! YOU SHOULD BE HUNG! No seriously, tell me, what leads you to believe this?

[Ghost of V]

RAMA SET! YOU SHOULD BE HUNG! No seriously, tell me, what leads you to believe this?

He's just as mystical as your Jew God. What makes you believe in that over King Arthur? That's your answer.

I believe the legendary bard George Michael wrote a song about it.

[Rama Set]

RAMA SET! YOU SHOULD BE HUNG! No seriously, tell me, what leads you to believe this?

to be completely serious, I have no idea if King Arthur actually existed, and am almost completely ignorant on the topic.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Actually, I tend to believe that there was an Arthur, probably a Celtic military leader of some sort who was able to fight off the Saxons at Badon, a battle we know almost nothing about, but which was recorded in several accounts of the time period and after( The Ecclesiastical History of the English People, The Ruin of Britain, The History of the Britons, The Annals of Wales and The History of the Kings of Britain). I know, of course, that he was NOT the great King that Malory describes. That King is the product of Platagenet England, and the blend of Anglo-Norman Kingship that came about as a result of the the invasion of William the Conqueror in 1066, and the blending of THOSE two civilisations, rather than the blending of the Romano-Celts and the Anglo-Saxons. The Celts, by 1066, had been pushed into Wales, and Southern Scotland.

But I wanted other opinions. I still have research to do to FIND the King or military leader that I think may have lived in the Fifth or Sixth Centuries. That is why I am asking you all. What do you think?

Well, that's a fair answer, RAMA SET. Thank you.

[Vindictus]

No he didn't.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

OK VINDICTUS, why not?

[Vindictus]

No major historical evidence.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

But doesn't that get us back to the question of "YET?"

[Ghost of V]

But doesn't that get us back to the question of "YET?"

Nope.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Why not? The text I am reading seems to bear out at least the possibility for an Arthur. It seems a bit odd that this many people would write about the same guy if he was a complete fiction.

[Particle Person]

Why not? The text I am reading seems to bear out at least the possibility for an Arthur. It seems a bit odd that this many people would write about the same guy if he was a complete fiction.

obvious Yahweh joke

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Let's keep the religious aspects out of this, shall we? I am not here to discuss Judaism, or the existence of God, or what have you. Lets keep this to King Arthur, and further, lets keep it friendly.

[Saddam Hussein]

But then again, no.

[Vindictus]

By that logic, Batman is real.

[Ghost of V]

Let's keep the religious aspects out of this, shall we? I am not here to discuss Judaism, or the existence of God, or what have you. Lets keep this to King Arthur, and further, lets keep it friendly.

Why not? The parallels are staggering.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I would say that the parallels are closer to asking if Jesus ever existed. The existence of a Supreme Being versus whether a human being ever existed are not particularly staggering. You can never prove historically that God exists or doesn't. But you can prove at some point whether Jesus, or maybe Moses, or Arthur did.

Granted, I think you'll have better luck with Arthur, because he lived 450 years later than Jesus. Then again, Britain was a cluster-f--k when he was around, so no real records were kept per se, so maybe that luck might not be there, but still.

[Rushy]

You can never prove historically that God exists or doesn't.

Yes, you can. Watch.

For every probability that god G exists, there exists an equal probability the inverse god G' exists. Everything that G does, G' undoes it. Therefore we can sum their impact on the universe. Thus 1 + (-1) = 0 and that is the sum total of their impact on the universe. Because G is put forth with no evidence G' can also be put forth. The only way to avoid this would being proving the existence of G, which is impossible. And no, a book doesn't count as proof any more than The Once and Future King is proof that King Arthur exists.